Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Death by Black Hole

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of black holes, particularly focusing on Neil DeGrasse Tyson's explanations in his book "Death by Black Hole." Participants explore the implications of being near a black hole, including the phenomenon of spaghettification and the effects of tidal forces on objects falling into black holes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express appreciation for Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speaking style and his ability to convey complex ideas about black holes.
  • There is a debate about the effects of relativistic speeds and whether an observer would feel any physical changes when approaching a black hole.
  • One participant emphasizes the significance of tidal forces, arguing that the difference in gravitational attraction between different parts of a body leads to severe consequences.
  • Another participant questions Tyson's explanation of "spaghettification," suggesting that it is not merely a matter of space shrinking but rather the result of non-parallel gravitational forces.
  • Some participants challenge the notion that space itself can exert a compressive force, arguing instead that it is the gravitational field that causes internal stresses in objects.
  • There is a discussion about the nature of gravity and its representation in physics, with references to Richard Feynman's ideas on gravitation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the explanations provided by Tyson regarding black holes and spaghettification. Multiple competing views remain, particularly concerning the interpretation of gravitational effects and the nature of space.

Contextual Notes

Some statements made by participants reflect uncertainty about the implications of relativity and gravitational forces, and there are references to differing interpretations of scientific concepts without resolution.

  • #31
Crazy Tosser said:
I will try to summarize and forget about this thread.
Forget this thread all you want, I don't want other people to visit PF and read wrong scientific facts on it.
Crazy Tosser said:
any object occupies the same amount of space relative to itself
Locally yes, you are right. But your body does not occupy a single point in space. Just think that the gravitational field becomes so intense, that your feet accelerate differently from your head ! That should be scary enough. Eventually, according to classical relativity, even atoms and nucleons are torn apart.
Crazy Tosser said:
Voila.
Voila rien, c'est d'la merde.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
humanino said:
I'm sure you are not young enough to have forgotten. It is 42.

Darn! I was thinking of 43. Oh well.

Since you have shown that there is at least one Graviton, you will have to come over if you want your beer.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Since you have shown that there is at least one Graviton, you will have to come over if you want your beer.
Or organize the next PF gathering at my place :-p

Thank you for the invitation ! Since I always want beer, does it mean that, unless I organize this PF gathering in a reasonable amount of time, I must come or I will contradict myself ?
 
  • #34
humanino said:
Forget this thread all you want, I don't want other people to visit PF and read wrong scientific facts on it.
Locally yes, you are right. But your body does not occupy a single point in space. Just think that the gravitational field becomes so intense, that your feet accelerate differently from your head ! That should be scary enough. Eventually, according to classical relativity, even atoms and nucleons are torn apart.
Voila rien, c'est d'la merde.

It's ok. Famous "astrophysicists" talking about things they do not know or understand on TV is much scarier.

The concern I was addressing is not the tidal forces, but once again (sigh) statements he made between [4:10] and [4:40] - that an object "occupies a different amount of space" and that causes it to be "squeezed through the "fabric" (ain't quotes big enough or red enough) of space". If you agree with that statement, it's your problem, General Relativity doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
I don't see anything wrong with talking about being "squeezed through the fabric of spacetime." It's colorful language, but he wasn't giving a technical talk. Even if he was, there really isn't anything wrong with it. There's no contradiction with GR.

The bit about occupying different amounts of space makes a lot less sense, so I would perhaps agree with that criticism. Your attempted corrections don't really improve the situation, however.
 
  • #36
Crazy Tosser said:
The concern I was addressing is [...] that an object "occupies a different amount of space" and that causes it to be "squeezed"
Let us consider other crackpot references.
What happens to you if you fall into a black hole?
Matt McIrvin & [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/john-baez/' said:
John Baez[/URL]]I have to hit the singularity eventually, and before I get there there will be enormous tidal forces-- forces due to the curvature of spacetime-- which will squash me and my spaceship in some directions and stretch them in another until I look like a piece of spaghetti.
Misner said:
§32.6. THE FATE OF A MAN WHO FALLS INTO THE SINGULARITY AT R = 0

Consider the plight of an experimental astrophysicist who stands on the surface of a freely falling star as it collapses to R = 0.
As the collapse proceeds toward R = 0, the various parts of the astrophysicist's body experience different gravitational forces. His feet, which are on the surface of the star, are attracted toward the star's center by an infinitely mounting gravitational force; while his head, which is farther away, is accelerated downward by a somewhat smaller, though ever rising force. The difference between the two accelerations (tidal force) mounts higher and higher as the collapse proceeds, finally becoming infinite as R reaches zero. The astrophysicist's body, which cannot withstand such extreme forces, suffers unlimited stretching between head and foot as R drops to zero.
But this is not all. Simultaneous with this head-to-foot stretching, the astrophysicist is pulled by the gravitational field into regions of spacetime with ever-decreasing circumferential area, 4\pi r^{-2}. In order to accomplish this, tidal gravitational forces must compress the astrophysicist on all sides as they stretch him from head to foot. The circumferential compression is actually more extreme than the longitudinal stretching; so the astrophysicist, in the limit R\rightarrow0, is crushed to zero volume and indefinitely extended length.

Remember that, at least as soon as nuclei, an absolute scale is defined by the size of hadrons (so-called \Lambda_\text{QCD}).
 
  • #37
humanino said:
Or organize the next PF gathering at my place :-p

Thank you for the invitation ! Since I always want beer, does it mean that, unless I organize this PF gathering in a reasonable amount of time, I must come or I will contradict myself ?

Just keep a beer in your hand and no paradoxes will be apparent.

That gives me an idea: Black Hole Beer - the beer that no one can resist.
 
  • #38
humanino...

alone.jpg
 
  • #39
humanino said:
Let us consider other crackpot references.

McIrvin? Thorne? Wheeler? They have ALL been on TV! For that matter, so has Feynman! How can you trust anything they say?
 
  • #40
Chi Meson said:
McIrvin? Thorne? Wheeler? They have ALL been on TV! For that matter, so has Feynman! How can you trust anything they say?

Indeed! I often find it amusing that somehow a expert on TV is seen as being less qualified than an expert who writes a book.

Conversely, there are many times that my parents will get all excited about something seen on TV when I've told them the same thing before. Then they call me to tell me all about it.
 
  • #41
Man, I was skimming over threads and all I saw was "Neil Degrasse Tyson: Death by..."

I thought, oh man, no way he died! lol
 
  • #42
Wow, Newton invented integral calculus in 3 month? :O I can't even learn basic calculus in 3 month. Oh man I feel dumb. :\
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K